Paul Finally Gets the Hagel Vote Right

This morning, Sen. Paul voted against cloture for the second time. This afternoon, he turned around and voted for the Hagel nomination. Obviously, that’s the outcome that I and a lot of other antiwar conservatives and libertarians were hoping for, but it makes the previous votes even harder to understand. If the first two can be explained as a matter of party discipline and affirming his identity as a “Republican’s Republican,” the last one certainly can’t be. Sen. Paul made the right decision on the most important vote, and he should get credit for it. He is certainly going to be in for an avalanche of abuse and attacks from the people who thought that he was going to vote their way.

This afternoon’s vote should help reduce the damage that Sen. Paul has done with potential supporters over the last two months. That said, I don’t think the initial negative reactions to his votes against cloture, including mine, were ill-considered or unreasonable. There was no good reason to join the filibuster earlier this month, and we weren’t wrong to say so. Sen. Paul was in a position almost two weeks ago to bring debate on the nomination to an end. He didn’t do that, and there was good reason to object. Voting against cloture this morning was even stranger when it was virtually guaranteed that the motion would pass. Whatever Sen. Paul was trying to do with these different votes, it resulted in avoidable confusion.

In the end, Paul ignored the hard-line ideological enforcers in his party that never wanted him in office in the first place, and he did so knowing that many of them will seek to do to him what they just tried to do to Hagel. As discouraging as some of Sen. Paul’s positions have been this year, today’s yes vote on Hagel was an admirable one. It was a vote that he took in the face of a relentless smear campaign aimed partly at policing Republican foreign policy debate and driving realists away from the party.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 23 comments

23 Responses to Paul Finally Gets the Hagel Vote Right

“Vote against but don’t filibuster” makes some sense–indeed near-automatic filibusters are a quite recent thing. In many cases in the not-too-distant past, measures have passed or appointees been confirmed who did not get the number of votes needed to invoke cloture.

Buf “filibuster but *don’t* vote against”? That makes no sense at all to me.

Took some courage for him to vote to confirm Hagel today.
I’m sure he’ll feel the wrath of the Jennifer Rubins and Bill Kristols of the world. So what though, they’ve been wrong on every foreign policy decision yet, and the American people agree.

Do you think the politics may be similar to GOP senators who ended up voting in favor of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, like Richard Burr of NC?

In other words, could it be as simple as he went with the party right up to the point where the nomination looked like it was going to go ahead with or without him, then switched his vote to be on the winning side (and to mollify his father’s supporters)?

“In other words, could it be as simple as he went with the party right up to the point where the nomination looked like it was going to go ahead with or without him, then switched his vote to be on the winning side (and to mollify his father’s supporters)?”

Sen. Paul made the right decision on the most important vote, and he should get credit for it.

I get what you’re saying, but I don’t agree. From my point of view, the most important votes were the ones that were purely about delaying the final decision. That’s where Sen. Paul could have wielded some positive influence in the intra-GOP debate, and where (because obstruction takes fewer Senators than actually defeating a nominee) his vote was more significant in absolute terms. On those votes, Paul threw in his lot enthusiastically with people making baseless attacks on Hagel and people making absurd and disingenuous requests for “more information” (e.g., the request from Senator McCarthy [R-TX] that Hagel prove he’s not being paid by foreign regimes).

Once it came to the full vote Paul’s final decision was irrelevant–everyone has known, almost from the beginning, that all Democrats would vote for Hagel and that his confirmation was a foregone conclusion even with zero GOP support.

The average right-wing militarist cares about this a great deal, and the average general election voter won’t even remember who the Secretary of Defense is by the time Rand Paul is running for office again. So the most straightforward take on this is that Paul obstructed Hagel to cover his right flank, and then voted for Hagel so he can tell reasonable but low-information voters, “hey, forget that procedural mumbo-jumbo–I wanted some more information, but I voted for the guy when it counted!”

Maybe Paul’s miscalculating how well his “at the end of the day, the President gets to pick his appointees” shtick is going to go over with the irrational militarists in his party, but this seems like pretty conventional unprincipled triangulation to me. John Kerry would recognize the approach: “I actually voted FOR the Secretary of Defense . . . after I voted against him!”

Paul spokeswoman Moira Bagley ,
“As he has said before, the president should be entitled to some leeway on his political appointments. That is why Sen. Paul voted in favor of Sen. John Kerry, with whom he largely disagrees on foreign policy, to serve as secretary of state, and that is why he voted for final passage of the nomination of Sen. Hagel this evening, with whom he also disagrees on a number of issues.”

Voting for against cloture but for confirmation truly doesn’t make sense. If one is looking for an explanation, perhaps it’s that Rand Paul just isn’t all that bright?

As to political courage, please. Voters–even Republican primary voters–aren’t going to care about, or even remember, who voted for or against Hagel 2 years from now. This vote won’t impact Paul’s electability at all.

Daniel, I have to say I disagree with you and most readers who chastise Rand Paul for voting against cloture in the first vote early in the month. It is a bit facetious to use the term “fillibuster” for what Republicans were doing. No one was taking the floor of the Senate and keeping the body from conducting business by never releasing the mike. Those days appear dead and buried. Nor was there a serious question of whether the vote would ever be taken. Had there been, I think Paul would have voted to end debate then. That vote was simply an accommodation by one Senator of his colleagues who wanted more time to consider how they would vote. If that earns Rand Paul some credit among his Senate colleagues more power to him.

What I haven’t deciphered is why Rand Paul voted against cloture again this morning, when it was clear the vote to end debate would carry, and there was no credible reason to delay the vote any longer. But the important vote, the vote that will be remembered, was that on the nomination itself. Had Rand Paul cast a vote against confirmation, even while it would have been inconsequential to the outcome, it would have lost him all credibility with those Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and even Chuck Hagel supporters who have been looking for just such a moment to see which Republicans stand against the Party’s warmongers and with those of us who advocate peace and keeping our powder dry for the sake of the nation’s defense. Rand Paul made it clear, he stands with us. Long may he stand.

And, I might say, today’s events, particularly if Chuck Hagel turns out to be the enlisted men’s Secretary I believe he will be, may be the first steps towards what could be the ideal ticket to take back the Republican Party for just that base of American patriots who have sacrificed their blood and the best years of their lives in the faithful service of their country – Paul/Hagel in 2016!

Mr. Larison, I thought you’d kind of seen the light with this guy, but maybe not. Of all the bloggers I read, you seem the least blinded by sentimentality and cults of personality, and the most conversant with evidence – in word and action.

As one I’ve admired as a truly evidence-based blogger, I don’t understand why you’re hanging on here in the face of all evidence that you’re hitching your wagon to a loser.

You’re giving the Younger Paul the benefit of a lot of doubts you’d never extend to one of his peers if those peers had been the authors of the same words and deeds.

That is too bad in some respects. Not they actually had a case, ut that a supposed Conservative it appears has jumped ship. And that is sad.

But the opposition needed to let the gentleman go, if they had no case. Now there was a fight, they needed not engage in. I waas hoping he would say this admin. is not worth my effort. They are weak, notorious liars.

Opportunists as that crop of ease immigration, same sex marrying crowd that has no backbone as to principles, but whateever it takes to win mentality. Has this administration actually stood on a single principle they ran on on either election. Not one policy position have they advocated that has been healthy for the country. They haven’t taken responsibility for a single event in their history.

Whenever I se the current wh occupant’s face, I feel like I need a shower.

Rand remains something of an enigma. He gets two cheers from me for his pro-confirmation vote. For a Washingtonian like me (I am talking about the first George W of “avoid entangling alliances” fame) Sen Paul remains just about the only hope for a serious re-thinking of what has become a seemingly inveterate militarism at the highest Republican Party levels (politicians, think tanks, columnists, NR, etc). He may turn out to be a thin reed upon which to rests our hopes, but right now he’s about the only reed we’ve got.

Maybe this was about giving Cruz et al enough rope to publicly hang themselves with. It’s a slow creep, but more people are paying attention the more this stuff is on the nightly news, and an early vote would have ended the story.

Rand Paul is a chip off the old block and a true Conservative in the style of Russell Kirk and William Buckley, and, yes, Hagel. He is not a neocon, but a person committed to basic Conservative philosophy.

The rest of the Republican Party is lost. They are bereft of any political philosophy and are guided by cable news, and magazines and think tanks with their own agendas.

Paul just confirmed his credentials for a Presidential run in 2016 by voting to confirm Hagel.

Mssrs. McCarthy and Larison, along with many commenters, are confused by Rand Paul’s seemingly idiosyncratic pattern of votes on Chuk Hagel nomination. Let me try to offer a different interpretation, which although purely speculative (I am not privy to Paul’s decision-making process) at least fits better with the course of events and what Paul is trying to achieve.
Let me start by saying that opposition to Hagel nomination in the GOP ranks was not driven by his ‘insufficient’ love for Israel or his ‘realist’ position on Iran. AIPAC and the large contingent of Israel BFFs in the Democratic caucus kept their powder dry likely because they received strong reassurances from the WH that Hagel would not be involved in policy-making on Middle East or Iran. Where Hagel is expected to have significant impact (just like any other DefSec) is in running Pentagon and, at this particular time, extent and structure of cuts in the Department of Defense budget. President could have chosen any technocrat to do this job (M. Flournoy was mentioned), but he wanted a Republican of national stature to give his policy an imprimatur of bipartisanship. DefSec actions have usually been perceived as endorsed by bipartisan consensus on defense policy and not driven by partisanship. When GOP members were previously asked to join Democratic cabinets (W. Cohen, R. Gates) it was with the implied consent of the Republican party.
Now, Chuck Hagel is a Republican of national stature, but as far as the GOP is concerned (that seems to include almost all GOP members of the senate), he is not a Republican any more (his party registration in Nebraska notwithstanding). He quit the senate in 2008 and supported candidate Obama against his former BFF McCain when it mattered. He is viewed by the GOP similarly as Lieberman was viewed by the Dems after his antics; tolerated (even given committee chairmanship to secure his vote) but not considered a ‘member in good standing’.
After the WH opted to pick Hagel without the consent of Republicans, the GOP wanted to make a strong statement that future Obama defense policies and Hagel’s actions regarding DoD budget cuts do not have the support and consent of the Republican party. The GOP never really believed (or at least not after Schumer declared support for Hagel) that they could actually block Hagel appointment. But, they couldn’t attack Hagel and deny him the nomination for something that he hasn’t done yet, so that’s where the GOP ‘smear artists’ (Kristol, Rubin, & co) came in. The hearings were a show for American public (including the military) to see that Hagel does not represent the Republican party. The first cloture vote was a GOP party line and everyone was asked to loyalty. In the second cloture vote, Hagel colleagues who served with him extended him the courtesy of letting him get the job, but in the final vote they unequivocally stated that he does not have their support. That’s why liberal papers including NYT are now opining that Hagel may be too damaged to be effective. I think the WH would have likely withdrawn his nomination, had it correctly predicted the outcome, but it was too late. After the Susan Rice failure it would have appeared as a brazen cave-in to the GOP.
So why did Paul vote as he did? Well, the first cloture vote was not a vote on whether Hagel would or wouldn’t become DefSec or a vote on merits of ‘realist’ defense policy. It was a GOP party statement that Hagel does not have their support and consent. Paul showed that he was going to be loyal and reliable Republican when it matters. The second cloture vote was irrelevant as the GOP leadership expressly stated that they do not wish to fight Hagel nomination to the bitter end. Many of Hagel’s old colleagues let him pass, but most of younger GOP members felt they do not owe him anything. The third vote, the actual confirmation, was when Paul made his own statement: he did not vote for Hagel because of kinship over policy (I suspect he does not have very high opinion of Hagel or his ‘realist’ worldview; the feeling is likely reciprocated by Hagel). Nor did he vote for Hagel because he wanted to extend the hand of friendship&love to those who jumped to accuse him of betrayal and being in the pay of Adelson (I think he is well aware that he lost Giraldi crowd long time ago). I believe that he voted for Hagel to show that he is going to be nobody’s ‘boy’: not Adelson’s (or Kristol’s), not McConnell’s, and not his father’s.
I think he pulled it off.

Brings to mind the bad old days of The Wall. Four Republican Senators cross under fire and make their way to freedom. It’s a start. Keeps hope alive that the regime will collapse leaving everybody wondering how on earth it lasted as long as it did. I’m looking forward to finding out what’s in the files and who the collaborators were. Might be surprising.